- From: John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:56:43 -0400
- To: "public-restrictedmedia\@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> writes: > On the other hand, as Danny O'Brien said, "It's really hard to argue that > DRM is problematic when people can turn around and say that the W3C and Tim > Berners-Lee think it's all right.", so I see why those opposed to DRM would > object to the "in scope" statement as a loss in a broader political > context. But that's not related to EME specifically and is really an issue > between opponents of DRM and the W3C management. > It is related to EME specifically. The "content protection in scope" statement is *not* exclusive to DRM. As Jeff has said, "content protection" is not synonymous with DRM. Other techniques such as watermarking, which do not require patented, non-interoperable, proprietary software on Web users' computers, fall under that category by their definition as well. So, yes, we have specific objections to EME, because EME is a member of this category that is objectionable for reasons that do not apply to all members of the category. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096>.
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 17:57:11 UTC